[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: amortizable hashcash paper

From: Julia Wolf
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: amortizable hashcash paper
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 05:00:21 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Tom Barnes-Lawrence wrote:

> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 04:29:56PM +0300, Igor Wronsky wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but the whole discussion below
> > reminds me of giving in to the tyranny of democracy, i.e.
> -Next: counting the votes of those people who have done _similar_
> searches. How exactly do we define similarity? If we're talking
> about similar == exactly_the_same_really  then I'd think that'd
> be easy enough, but would it be useful? I can imagine a mechanism
> for determining whether 2 searches are similar, but requiring
> reams of statistics for _all_ searches that have been performed
> and who did them. I feel that would be quite accurate but painful.
> -Finally: The proposal emphasises that the votes be used to *sort* the
> search results. On the one hand, this is quite a good thing that it's
> not talking about censorship as such, *but* think about it: Everybody
> searches for foo. First person checks the first 10 results, finds them
> OK, and votes for them. Next person is more likely to get those
> results sooner, and vote for them. And the next person. The voting
> system could quite easily polarise the popularity of search results
> such that certain results would usually only appear nearer the far
> end of the lists and stay there.
>  Even if someone had the patience to check the whole of a list
> with hundreds of results, their vote would be pretty insignificant
> next to the people who didn't. And of course, if few people even
> get to see a certain search response, it wouldn't be too surprising
> if it never got downloaded, and was discarded from the network,
> never to be seen again.

  You sound like you're describing a power law curve.
  You need to read this:

  To summerize: The top two people/files/thingies will be several times
larger (in arbitrary counting units) than the vast majority of everything
else. And These structures will naturally arrise from the proccess you
just described above.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]